After watching the "bin Laden" ad, reading the (thinly) veiled DLC attack on
Dean today and reading Dean's foreign policy speeches today, something
that has been bothering me for a long time has finally bubbled to the surface.
I posted a comment in a lost diary about it, but wanted to flesh out my thoughts a little more, so here it goes.
Over and over again, Democracts are forming their arguments and positions inside the ideological framework of those in the opposition.
The ideological framing of the Osama ad, for example, starts with the acceptance of the "clash of civilizations". Huntington's arguments some one of the concepts at the center of the Straussian worldview of Feith, Wolfowitz, and Perle. When
you buy into their conceptual framework, they win the argument hands down, since that framework only allows one outcome. The fact is, we know that the
terrorists don't "hate us for our freedom" or want to "destroy our way of life".That's crap, and we all know it. They (the terrorists) want us to change our foreign policy to match our rhetoric, and I don't blame them one damn bit. I vehemently oppose their methods, but I certainly understand their objectives.
The NDOL statement today also cedes the most effective ground for challenging the Bush administration on foreign policy :
... removal from power was, and remains, a sufficient reason for Coalition military action in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's number one weapon of mass destruction ... Here at home, the capture of Saddam will not and should not end constructive criticism of the Bush administration's handling of post-Saddam Iraq and foreign relations generally. But it does vindicate those Democrats -- including presidential candidates Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and John Edwards -- who took the politically difficult course of supporting military action to topple the tyrant. Lest we forget, had those who opposed the war gotten their way, Saddam would still be in power, would still be tormenting the Iraqi people, would still be financing Palestinian terrorists, and would still be threatening peace, human rights, and democracy, along with America's vital interests, in the Middle East.
Here, the NDOL have given Bush a free pass on lying to Congress and the American people, accepted that the ends justify the means, and engaged in speculation without basis about what may or may not have happened had we approached Iraq differently. They have effectively removed any foreign agenda except that of the current administration from the table. They have forfeited the debate, instead of rising to the challenge of presenting an alternative to the wreckage
we're currently imposing on the international order.
Contrast that with Deans foreign policy speech today, in which he stated
Empowered by the American people, I will work to restore:
The legitimacy that comes from the rule of law;
The credibility that comes from telling the truth;
The knowledge that comes from first-rate intelligence, undiluted by ideology;
The strength that comes from robust alliances and vigorous diplomacy; ...
Today, billions of people live on the knife's edge of survival, trapped in a struggle against ignorance, poverty, and disease. Their misery is a breeding ground for the hatred peddled by bin Laden and other merchants of death.
This statement challenges the ideologues head on. It's crucial that we identify
the
real challenges we face, and come up with solutions that address those
problems. Accepting the farcial challenges and reasons for tension that are
put forth by those in power now will get us nowhere, and their worldview only
permits one course of action, which is the one they have chosen.